Chhattisgarh Court July 2003 Judgments
Bhagirathi Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-31-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Chh8
ORDERFakhruddin, J.1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Originally this Act was made by Madhya Pradesh and after reorganisation of the State of Chhattisgarh it has been adopted by this State.2. The ground for challenge as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, learned counsel referred to para 5.18 of the petition, whereby it is hypothetically contended that the Sarpanch is elected directly whereas Panchas are elected from the Wards and these Panchas, who have been elected, do not have right to remove the Sarpanch, who has been elected from his own constituency.3. Section 21 of the aforesaid Act is pertinent, which reads as under :'21. No confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch -- (1) On a motion of no c...
Tag this Judgment!Dilbodh Nagesia Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2347; 2004(1)MPHT26(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. These two appeals, i. e., Criminal Appeal No. 454/2000 preferred by Dilbodh Nagesia and Criminal Appeal No. 1271/2000 preferred by Tijan Nagesia are arising out of the same judgment therefore they are being disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The accused/appellants have preferred these criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15th December, 1998 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No 389/97 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding accused/appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life.3. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 30th November and 1st December, 1997 at about 9 p.m. deceased Pradeep was at the residence of his brother Ram Narayan. The three accused persons namely T...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT1(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. All the above three criminal appeals are arising out of the same judgment dated 18th January, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur and they relate to the same incident. As all the three accused/appellants were accused in the same case, i.e,, Sessions Trial No. 348/94, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The accused/appellants have preferred these criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18th January, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Distt. Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 348/94, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellants guilty of the commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurren...
Tag this Judgment!Sharda Flour Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Chh12
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is against condition No. 20 (a) of the notice inviting tenders issued by respondent No. 3 by which along with other conditions a condition has been prescribed in order to become eligible for submitting the tender in response to the notice inviting tenders.2. Condition No. 20 (a) of the notice inviting tenders lays down that the intending tenderer's firm must submit a certificate, along with the tender form, of an Officer of the Government Department/Institution/Undertaking, showing their experience and execution of an order regarding supply of the substitute nutritious food of the value equivalent to 30% of the tender item which comes to Rs. 80,00,000/-, in one year during the last three preceding years.3. petitioner/Company has filed this petition with the averments that the petitioner namely, M/s. Sharda Flour Pvt. Ltd., is one of the most repute...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikishan and Company Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-25-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Chh18
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The main grievance of the petitioner/Company in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the decision of the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to enter into the negotiations with all the tenderers asking them to send their negotiated rates in a sealed envelope and not to accept the petitioner's tender even though the rates quoted by him were lowest. The petitioner Company has filed this petition with the averments that the Chief Engineer, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna had floated the tender for road and cross drainage works for various areas under' Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna including the. maintenance of the same for five years after the construction. The tender notice was published on 16th April 2003. In response to the said tender notice the petitioner had applied for group No. 18 i.e. Raigarh CG-13-7. The estimated cost Rs. 513.18 lacs was fixed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner quoted the rate 4.8% below the estimated value ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Brijpal
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)MPHT42(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Accused/appellant Brijpal was tried by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bemetara, Distt. Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2000 for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25(1B)B read with Section 4 of the Arms Act for committing the murders of Surajbai, Prabhabai, Dhaneshwari and Domar Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 8th March, 2002, after holding the accused guilty of the offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25(1B)B read with Section 4 of the Arms Act, sentenced him to death. However, no separate sentence has been passed for the commission of the offence under Section 25(1B)B read with Section 4 of the Arms Act.2. Criminal appeal No. 326 of 2002 has been filed by the accused/appellant against the said conviction and sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made Death Refe...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-24-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4692; 2004(1)MPHT1(CG)
L.C. Bhadoo, J. 1. The accused/appellant Ram Singh was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1999 for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of Shani Ram and Maya Ram and for attempting to commit the murder of Sukhri Bai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 9th January, 2001 after holding the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 307, IPC sentenced him to death and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 1/2 years for the offence under Section 307, IPC.2. Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2001 has been filed by the accused/appellant against the said conviction and...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Nashima Rao Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2005Chh10; 2003(3)MPHT50(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. Heard.2. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks relief to command the respondents for re-valuation of the answer-sheets of the petitioner and also to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.3. In Para 5.1 of the petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is a very brilliant and extra-ordinary intelligent student and she has always been awarded above 85% marks in the examination. In 1995-96 the petitioner secured 70.5% marks in Vth Board Examination and in the year 1999 the petitioner, secured 75.2% marks in VIIIth Class Board Examination and in 2000-2001 the petitioner secured 80% in Xth Class Board Examination and in the year 2002 the petitioner secured 84.2% marks in XIth Class Examination. The petitioner has also participated in Senior General Knowledge Test Certificate and secured 63% marks. It has been further mentioned that while studying in Class XII th...
Tag this Judgment!Mecgale Pneumatics Vs. Bhilai Electrical Supply Company Limited and an ...
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Jul-02-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Chh5; 2004(1)CTLJ147(Chhatt); 2003(3)MPHT54(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, a registered Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act under Registration No. NGP/1441/90-91 and engaged in the work of manufacturing, supplying, marketing and distribution of materials for civil, mechanical and constructions, has challenged the decision and action of the respondents for inviting a tender for supply and installation of scraper conveyer and clinker venture for disposal of ash in the Thermal Power Plant through a Tender Document (Annexure P-3).2. The main challenge in this writ petition is Clause (B) of the Qualifying Requirements by which the respondents among others has fixed the eligibility criteria for a tenderer that 'the bidder must have executed a single contract of value not less than Rs. 72.00 lakhs for supply and installation of scraper conveyer of capacity not less than 4 ton per hour each and clinker grinder of capacity not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›